'GROUP B' - The Best of Each Decade Birthday Draft. VOTING THREAD

Each contestent has rented a Time Machine, gone back in time, and assembled their own ATG team as listed below. Each player in the team is in the peak form of their career, and is injury free.

Since the Test Match Championship will be played in modern conditions using modern equipment, the respective teams have been assembled in advance, and have played a full season in local competitions. ‘Old Timers’ have remarked that they, “thoroughly enjoyed the experience”, and that playing in 21st century conditions with excellent equipment was a “revelation”.

The Test Match Championship is comprised of Home and Away fixtures between each of the seven teams. The strongest team with the most wins in ‘GROUP B’ will advance to the Grand Final against the winner of ‘GROUP A’.

Voting Rules

Please vote for the 3 strongest teams. That is, the 3 teams that you think are the most likely to win the most matches in the ATG Test Match Championship, Group Stage. As usual for Test Match cricket, Wins = 1 point, and Draws/Losses = 0

Voting will be stopped and counted at 8:00 pm Sydney Time, THURSDAY. Votes after that time will be discounted. If there is a tie then voting will continue for a further 24 hours to break the deadlock.

Please remember to vote for 3 ‘GROUP A’ teams when you have finished voting for your 3 ‘GROUP B’ teams.

As stated before, the winner of ‘GROUP B’ will advance to the Grand Final against the winner of ‘GROUP A’.

The idea is to select 12 players, one from each decade. To stop arguments about whether Hobbs was a pre-War batsman, or a batsman from the 1920s, we'll be going by each player's Birthday. The cut-off Birthday dates for each decade are as follows;

Each participant has 12 hours to pick their player for the Round. The odd numbered Rounds will be randomised, and the corresponding even Rounds will be in reverse order.

If a participant misses 2 consecutive Rounds then the next participant in the order can make their pick straight away without waiting the 12 hours. If a participant misses 3 consecutive Rounds then they will be assumed to be unavailable and cannot return to the game.

As usual, NO Bradman.

Feel free to join in. Anyone one play, but it's first come first served, so be quick. It would be nice to get 10 to 14 participants.

(If you don't think that the cut-offs for each decade are quite right then please let me know before we start)

significantly changes the value of each player and was never mentioned as voting criteria while drafting

I'm going to use this as flavour for the OP only and vote how I usually do, hopefully others will as well

Don't want to get into a protracted esoteric debate, but if WG Grace (for example) is about to front up to Allan Donald then why would he use a crappy old bat (in relative terms), and have no modern padding or protection? After all, we are assuming the context of a 'real' Test Match Championship.

Indeed, if we don't assume a context like a 'real' Test Match Championship played at some point in time, like 2014, then we are confronted with a simple 'logical impossibility' - a Test match strip cannot be both from the 1880s and the 2010s similtaneously. It must be one or the other. In other words, WG Grace cannot play a game of cricket in the 1880s, and Allan Donald play a game of cricket in the 1990s at the same time. A choice of some kind needs to made.

Personally, I think it devalues the ATG player more to exist in a team with no context at all, and consequently have nothing to 'do' other than help make up the numbers in a simple list - even if the 'doing' only exists within the realms of fantasy.

That's why I also added the following paragraph;

Since the Test Match Championship will be played in modern conditions using modern equipment, the respective teams have been assembled in advance, and have played a full season in local competitions. ‘Old Timers’ have remarked that they, “thoroughly enjoyed the experience”, and that playing in 21st century conditions with excellent equipment was a “revelation”.

But I guess, fantasy is not according to everyones taste because we each have our different temperments. I thoroughly enjoy the SciFi series 'Dr Who', and buy into all its weird premises. But at the same time other people think that it's a waste of time and all very stupid. Why would anyone want to suspend reality and belief that Time Travel inside a Police Call Box is 'real' they say?

Howe, for the sake of this Draft, I politely suggest that you think like a child again

Don't want to get into a protracted esoteric debate, but if WG Grace (for example) is about to front up to Allan Donald then why would he use a crappy old bat (in relative terms), and have no modern padding or protection? After all, we are assuming the context of a 'real' Test Match Championship.

Indeed, if we don't assume a context like a 'real' Test Match Championship played at some point in time, like 2014, then we are confronted with a simple 'logical impossibility' - a Test match strip cannot be both from the 1880s and the 2010s similtaneously. It must be one or the other. In other words, WG Grace cannot play a game of cricket in the 1880s, and Allan Donald play a game of cricket in the 1990s at the same time. A choice of some kind needs to made.

Personally, I think it devalues the ATG player more to exist in a team with no context at all, and consequently have nothing to 'do' other than help make up the numbers in a simple list - even if the 'doing' only exists within the realms of fantasy.

That's why I also added the following paragraph;

But I guess, fantasy is not according to everyones taste because we each have our different temperments. I thoroughly enjoy the SciFi series 'Dr Who', and buy into all its weird premises. But at the same time other people think that it's a waste of time and all very stupid. Why would anyone want to suspend reality and belief that Time Travel inside a Police Call Box is 'real' they say?

Howe, for the sake of this Draft, I politely suggest that you become a child again

For the bolded - whether or not he could face Donald was never part of what WG set out to do and wasn't what made him a special player. So I'm not going to take it into account because it's nothing to do with how good he was.

As for the rest, what I mean isn't to insist on you not imagining a game between these sides if that's what you want. I'm just prickly about being told circumstances for voting are specific, rather than allowing people the criteria that they would normally use, after we've already played the draft.

For the bolded - whether or not he could face Donald was never part of what WG set out to do and wasn't what made him a special player. So I'm not going to take it into account because it's nothing to do with how good he was.

As for the rest, what I mean isn't to insist on you not imagining a game between these sides if that's what you want. I'm just prickly about being told circumstances for voting are specific, rather than allowing people the criteria that they would normally use, after we've already played the draft.

Oh I see where you are coming from now. Yes, I should have made the Scenario part of the OP from the outset as that would have been more consistent. However, I don't think that the impact of the Scenario is as dramatic as you assume as people will still gravitate toward their favourite players, and favourite style of team, irrespective of what I write. As they say, "a champion in one era would still be a champion in another era", and everyone knows who their champions are.

Also, I had a lot of fun creating and writing the scenario, and didn't think that it would be deal other than peoples imaginations would be stirred.

I'm all for voting on the basis of the implicit assumption that Grace would have the advantage of modern equipment and training methods, and would not have his short Test career held against him. But the "players at their peak" bit doesn't sit well with me. If I were part of the draft, I'd have selected players a lot differently if I'd have known that beforehand.

Originally Posted by Athlai

If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum'Joe says it then it must be true.

Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

Blackus' team is superb. The attack of Donald-Pollock-Davidson-Peel-Hammond-Simpson has excellent variety and is a definite standout. What's more, it is given an extra edge by the brilliance of Oldfield. The opening partnership of Greenidge and Simo is to die for, and the middle order of Hammond-Nourse-Mead is very solid. Abbas did have his problems against the West Indian pacers of his time, but then again, most batsman did. Abbas is still class. An exceptional team from beginning to end.

Not sure about the two remaining choices as this Group, like the other one, is high quality and very tight. Something to ponder during the rest of the day.......

But how else do we select players. No one selects VI thinking you are getting his 1991 version you pick players at their peaks. Marshall from '83 to '84 etc.

I look at their overall career. If you're selecting them with their peak in mind, then it opens up the debate of what constitutes a peak. When I pick Viv, I pick him keeping in mind that he could be sublime in one game and his '91 version in the next.

I look at their overall career. If you're selecting them with their peak in mind, then it opens up the debate of what constitutes a peak. When I pick Viv, I pick him keeping in mind that he could be sublime in one game and his '91 version in the next.

The point at which the player reached their highest ICC rating is as good as any definition of peak that I've seen. Importantly, the algorithm used to calculate the 'peak rating' takes into account their entire career to that point.

Incidently, according to the ICC, Viv Richards reached his career 'peak rating' during 1981.